/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Dixies were going to try and invade Cuba and the rest of the Caribbean down to Venezuela, how would this have been progressive?

>>2846140
>were going to try
yes and fail. just like their yankee brothers. the difference is that a dixie capitalist state would never rise to the heights of the yankee capitalist state - the supreme hegemon

>>2846143
You’re recycling the alt history bullshit that cute trans Shay was pushing, the idea that the confederacy winning would have meant a communist slave revolt and a Soviet aligned south

that pic is cool where did you find it

Oh shit is shay back?

>>2871587
someone write this alt history NOW

>>2871587
b but what about the white yeoman farmers

Thomas Jefferson in 1816 had already claimed that national independence for the United States depended upon developing industry, which was promoted by various Northerners (e.g. "The American System"), such as Henry Clay in 1824, and this was the trajectory til after the Civil War, where "Reconstruction" (1865-77) led to the Gilded Age (1877-90), and this is when the Robber Baron monopolists such as Rockefeller and Vanderbilt gain ascendancy. The transition from an agricultural economy to manufacturing and transportation was already in motion, the same way agriarian capital moved to industrial capital in England, with the Mercantilist revolt in the 17th century. As William Pitt the Elder said in 1770: "the colonies should not be permitted to manufacture so much as a horseshoe nail", viewing the comparative advantage of capital allocation in agriculture for British manufacturing. Marx writes of the same colonial strategy of the British after uniting with Ireland (1801); that the industry was effectively exported to Britain, and Ireland was pasteurised. So then, Britain sought to eradicate global competition, and for these sectors to depend on British trade. To come back to Jefferson therefore, the more that the US depended on Britain, the more it was its servant - think of how China is gaining power since so much of the West has effectively de-industrialised.

In terms of the purpose of the Civil War, so much is mystified in moralism. After states in the South seceded in 1860, there was the obvious threat of economic withdrawal, prompting partisan support for the Confederacy by the British, despite abolishing slavery in their colonies by 1834. The side of the Confederacy is the side of Europe, against America. Abraham Lincoln only delivered the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, but even after liberation, he desired to deport the freed black people back to Africa, but died before this was possible. In terms of the rest of the world's gain, it was rather exclusive to the interests of France and Britain. Nonetheless, the age of capitalist Imperialism begins around 1870 by the Scramble for Africa (1876-1913), at the same time as monopoly in the US, which all culminates into the disaster of the Great War (1914-18). I can see how the Confederacy maintaining secession would be in the interest of the Old World, but I don't see what is "progressive" in it, exactly.

>>2871587
Slavery is a socialist institution, read Fitzhugh

I do not care about the United States.

>>2871928
Too bad, the United States wants you

>>2846131
Define historically progressive

>>2871939
Advancing mode of production towards socialism.

>>2871587
>>2871637
Except Haiti was instigated by outside French revolutionary forces (neither white supremacists or black identitarian movements like this fact)

>>2871949
The latter, from what I've seen just gets very semantic. "The French Revolutionaries weren't the one's who ended slavery, they only did it because the slave revolts had already won". It's about as convincing as a Western Maoist claiming Nixon crawled into China on his hands and knees.
And while we're at it, both white supremacists and black nationalists conveniently ignore the fact that the US and UK provided military aid to Haiti. Why? Because a weak Haitian state was preferable to having France back on their doorstep. The new Haitian leadership understood that reality and made those deals. That's how politics works. There has never been a successful revolt or revolution in history that didn't involve compromise with existing state powers at some point, no matter how much people want to romanticize it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Domingue_expedition

>>2871948
There’s your fundamental problem. No mode of production is closer than an other to socialism. Socialism isn’t a function of how much automation of industry we have. Socialism isn’t more or less feasible because we have more or less automation or industry. Socialism is only a function of how much and how deeply the exploited class is divided.

>>2871992
Try jumping from primitive communism to advanced communism without class society in between see what happens retard

>>2872023
Primitive communism isn’t a thing. It’s a 100yo category built upon the lack of anthropological and archeological knowledge of the period.
Advanced communism isn’t a thing either. The higher phase of communism isn’t advanced communism, its the state of social relationships freed from relationships inherited from past class societies.
In what way does capitalist social configuration bring us closer to communism than, for example, the social configuration of a village of open field peasants?

>>2872040
Peasants aren’t proles and you need proles as a base for communism, simple as

people in this website have a severe case of contrarianism, brainrot they inherit from the time they were poltards (and most people here just swap political beliefs every week to try and shock peoplr)

>>2872050
>brainrot they inherit from the time they were poltards
They are more alike than they care to admit:, guys LARPing with the images of better men, unserious people on both sides who justify each other's existence through the presence of the other.

>>2872050
Nailed it

>>2872048
Do you agree with Marx or not?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/
> Karl Marx: The reply to Zasulich (350 words)

> The analysis in Capital therefore provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune. But the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source­ material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.

>>2872072
I disagree with Marx here

>>2872040
>In what way does capitalist social configuration bring us closer to communism than, for example, the social configuration of a village of open field peasants?
capitalism hollowed out the bourgeois institution of marriage by forcing women to work, peasants are stoopid and reactionary and reject communisms social principles more than proles by a factor of a million

>>2871587
Anon I…I…cant argue against this…. I kneel

>>2872081
>the bourgeous institution of marriage
Please stop with the buzzwords

>>2872077
Why?

>>2872081
> peasants are stoopid and reactionary
Peasants were at the forefront of all egalitarian revolts before capitalism.

>and reject communisms social principles
Only once land reforms and capitalism turned them into atomised and precarious small property owners. Revolutionary Cubans, Chineses, Vietnamese, and many others, where mostly peasants.

>more than proles
You won’t believe who, alongside petit bourgeois, held the riffles that slaughtered most revolutionary proles accros history : other proles.

>>2872091
Marriage has existed long before the capitalist mode of production. There is indeed a bourgeois form of marriage, but the form Engels is talking about here has more to do with the inherited form of marriage in (western) peasant societies, where women did most of the household work

>>2872091
But Engels' analysis is false here. If the husband is the worker and the wife lives on dependence from the worker, then the wife is bourgeois, but I wouldn't employ such vulgar sentiments to begin with. If the wife is a slave, what more of her children? Marx has a much better assessment, that the parents together become capitalist against their children, who must earn "keep" as a rent. Marx also rightly sees that all wage labour is a type of prostitution, and so the supposed femininity of sexual exploitation is only an obscuration of the social totality. When feminists declare the wife to be a sexual object, this provides a mystical "dignity" to wage work - too, Marx compares job listings to slave markets. But feminists are mostly capitalist realists anyway, who think that as long as you pay housewives for their services, the institution of housewivery itself becomes legitimate. Marx at least offers this sentiment:
<Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_12-abs.htm
The mistake of second wave feminists like Beauvoir is the insistence upon mere equality. If the female prostitute gains an equal standing to the male prostitute, prostitution is not ended. So, the sex war must be subordinated by class war. We see in the USSR that no-fault divorces were permitted yet rates of long-term marriage outgrew that of the West. The sexes are not inherently antagonistic.

>>2872104
>Marriage has existed long before the capitalist mode of production.
that's what I'm saying, it was capitalism that finally hollowed it out and gave women a bit of freedom, but only through communism can that process of liberation be fully completed. It would obviously be more difficult for a peasant society with the fully intact family unit to make that transition

>>2872109
Engels isn’t totally wrong. Once in the capitalist mode of production, the inability to sell your work as a commodity does put you in an inferior position, where you can only receive a part of the social surplus through being personally dominated by someone who can sell his labour.

>>2872118
It didn’t hollowed it out, it gave it a new form. Marriage and the family unit are still a core mechanism in the reproduction of capital.

>It would obviously be more difficult for a peasant society with the fully intact family unit to make that transition.
What makes you believe that? Nepalese revolutionary peasants had women in key roles fighting in the guérilla. Only once the guérilla took power Nepalese revolutionary women were relegated to subordinate positions. Don’t underestimate the power of class struggle to bring about rapid change in social relationships.

>>2872130
>Marriage and the family unit are still a core mechanism in the reproduction of capital.
The divorce rate in the US is over 40%
Over 50% of marriages in the US are childless

>>2872130
>Marriage and the family unit are still a core mechanism in the reproduction of capital.
Used to be, it's been disintegrating before our eyes to serve the needs of capitalism itself. 100 years ago in america most banks would refuse to open an account for a woman unless her husband was present, now anyone has the option of opening a bank account for themselves. Face it, capitalism doesn't exactly need the family unit to function, just look at the birthrates lol

>>2872136
Right, because capitalism is only happening in the USA.

>>2871911
>>2846144
>You’re recycling the alt history bullshit that cute trans Shay was pushing, the idea that the confederacy winning would have meant a communist slave revolt and a Soviet aligned south
that's really interesting actually. You see a lot of dystopian alt history, very little utopian alt history. But this seems to be a dystopian alt history that becomes utopian by the end. You never see that kind of thing. It would probably sell very well as a novel. Dixie Lost Causer chuds would buyy it only to be horrified that it goes from Turner Diaries at the beginning to Nat Turner Diaries at the end lol. Huge rugpull on that demographic hahahaha.

However to make the alt history believable you would need some kind of pro-Dixie intervention by a foreign power, because Dixie was abso-fucking-lutely not going to win that shit.

>>2875458
It would have to be the UK supporting dixie against Prussia and Russia who were both staunchly pro union, but in the manner you saw proxy wars in the 20th century rather than the direct colonial conquering business of the 16th-19th centuries

dixies brought all the uyghurs to amerikkka, so they were the historically progressive force

>>2871587
exactly. there would be no whitey in NA left. No huwhite American/Canacuck liberal to establish themselves as Pope of SOcialism and stifle the rapid development of the Western hemisphere.

Posts like these makes me realize why Marx was right to criticize the lazy Mexicans. Holy shit you guys would rather the world remianed in an underdeveloped shithole state populated with """free""" republics that remain poor shitholes.

Here's what would actually happen
>confederates win
>slavery gets gruadually abolished anyway because you can't stop the development of capitalism
>the US is now capitalist but far more white supremacist than before
>allies with Nazi Germany and Japan in WW2
>nukes USSR and China and total worldwide non-white genocide happens

>>2876759
Allying with Japan is unthinkable lmao, more like they ally with the Kuomintang and rape the maoists if you want to make shit up

>>2876759
hitler was beloved by nonwhite folx thovgh, he only killed whites

>>2876759
>The North was less white supremacist than the south
Lincoln deplored the idea of civic equality with black people and wanted to deport them back to Africa. Also, literally all of Hitler's atrocious ideas come directly from both the US and the UK. Also, the USSR literally had a peace pact with the Nazis until Operation Barbarossa. Your historiography is Wolfenstein-esque nonsense.
>>2876946
Jesse Owens said that the Third Reich was less racist than the USA.

>>2875461
Why was the Russian Empire pro union? I know why the UK wanted the South to win. Cotton for their textile industry.

>>2877306
Negative polarization against the UK

The South was the major interventionist region in pre-Pearl Harbor USA. If you want an alt history, have the North join the Axis in order to conquer the South.

>>2877309
Turtledove’s novels have the north joining the central powers in WWI, that’s the closest you’ll get